Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:WhatKatieDidAtSchool

2008-12-06T15:50:56Z

NeilEG: New page: Please stop vandalising. Someone block this guy for good.

Please stop vandalising. Someone block this guy for good.

Candy

2008-12-05T17:20:05Z

NeilEG:

'''Candy''' is a term that has become synonymous with [[confection]]. Candy is a sweet food made from [[sugar]]. Candy may refer to toffee, hard sugar candies, chocolates and edible wax. Some examples of these are peanut brittle, lemon drops, chocolate covered cherries and candy corn. In the UK, candy is known as 'sweets'.

==Making Sugar candy ==
A variety of sugar candies can be made by heating a mixture of sugar and water to the required temperature and then adding colorings and flavorings and possibly fruits and nuts. The temperature the sugar reaches determines its final hardness with lower temperatures making soft toffees and high temperatures the hard candies like lemon drops.

{{stub}}

==References==
* http://inventors.about.com/od/foodrelatedinventions/a/candy.htm
* http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodcandy.html
* [http://www.carolscandycorner.com/waxlips.html Edible Wax Candy]

[[category:Food and Drink]]

Megalomaniac

2008-12-03T17:54:50Z

NeilEG: More vandlaism removal

[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|180px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] was a prime example of a megalomaniac.]]
A '''megalomaniac''' is a person with an abnormal lust for power over others. Many [[dictator]]s or [[tyrant]]s around the world are megalomaniacs. A good example of a megalomaniac is [[Joseph Stalin]], who enjoyed personally wielding his power during his rule over the [[Soviet Union]], which claimed the lives of countless innocent people. [[Adolf Hitler]], however, is not a good example; while it is true that he had a lot of power and was very oppressive, he was a lazy man and liked to delegate his power to other people to carry out vague orders. Typically, the only people who were victims of Hitler's megalomania were his generals and staff, who would be punished or demoted if they failed to achieve their objective.

Not all megalomaniacs have a lot of power, however. Many are ordinary people who take a somewhat pathetic pleasure in wielding whatever measure of power they may have. This can be as small-scale as, for example, a bartender arbitrarily refusing to serve customers he does not like, or a librarian rigorously enforcing the rules if a reader is a minute late returning a book.
[[Category:Psychology]]

Megalomaniac

2008-12-03T17:54:05Z

NeilEG: remove unnecessary bolding by vandal

[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|180px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] was a prime example of a megalomaniac.]]
A '''megalomaniac''' is a person with an abnormal lust for power over others. Many [[dictator]]s or [[tyrant]]s around the world are megalomaniacs. A good example of a megalomaniac is [[Joseph Stalin]], who enjoyed personally wielding his power during his rule over the [[Soviet Union]], which claimed the lives of countless innocent people. [[Adolf Hitler]], however, is not a good example; while it is true that he had a lot of power and was very oppressive, he was a lazy man and liked to delegate his power to other people to carry out vague orders. Typically, the only people who were victims of Hitler's megalomania were his generals and staff, who would be punished or demoted if they failed to achieve their objective. (Oh, and I herad he wan't too nice to the Jews either).

Not all megalomaniacs have a lot of power, however. Many are ordinary people who take a somewhat pathetic pleasure in wielding whatever measure of power they may have. This can be as small-scale as, for example, a bartender arbitrarily refusing to serve customers he does not like, or a librarian rigorously enforcing the rules if a reader is a minute late returning a book.
[[Category:Psychology]]

Megalomaniac

2008-12-03T17:49:14Z

NeilEG: Remove vandalism

[[Image:Stalin-140508 27880t.jpg|right|180px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] was a good example of a megalomaniac.]]
A '''megalomaniac''' is a person with an abnormal lust for power over others. Many [[dictator]]s or [[tyrant]]s around the world are megalomaniacs. A good example of a megalomaniac is [[Joseph Stalin]], who enjoyed personally wielding his power during his rule over the [[Soviet Union]], which claimed the lives of countless innocent people. [[Adolf Hitler]], however, is not a good example; while it is true that he had a lot of power and was very oppressive, he was a lazy man and liked to delegate his power to other people to carry out vague orders. Typically, '''the only people who were victims of Hitler's megalomania were his generals and staff''', who would be punished or demoted if they failed to achieve their objective. (Oh, and I herad he wan't too nice to the Jews either).

Not all megalomaniacs have a lot of power, however. Many are ordinary people who take a somewhat pathetic pleasure in wielding whatever measure of power they may have. This can be as small-scale as, for example, a bartender arbitrarily refusing to serve customers he does not like, or a librarian rigorously enforcing the rules if a reader is a minute late returning a book.
[[Category:Psychology]]

Megalomaniac

2008-12-03T13:34:48Z

NeilEG:

A '''megalomaniac''' is a person with an abnormal lust for power over others. Many dictators or tyrants around the world are megalomaniacs. A good example of a megalomaniac is Josef Stalin, who enjoyed personally wielding his power. Adolf Hitler, however, is not a good example; while it is true that he had a lot of power and was very oppressive, he was a lazy man and liked to delegate his power to other people to carry out vague orders. Typically, the only people who were victims of Hitler's megalomania were his generals and staff, who would be punsihed or demoted if they failed to achieve their objective.

[[Category:Dictionary]]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

2008-12-02T18:14:12Z

NeilEG: Corrected a quote

[[Image:Monty_python_and_the_holy_grail.jpg|thumb|right|Monty Python and the Holy Grail Poster]]

'''"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"''' is a [[film]] written, produced, directed and performed by the [[Monty Python]] comedy team.

After their success on [[television]] the Pythons wanted to move into film. A compilation film of sketches for their series [[Monty Python's Flying Circus]] called "And Now for Something Completely Different" had been a great success. However the BBC were unwilling to fund the Python movie and most of the funds for Holy Grail were provided by members of the rock groups [[Led Zeppelin]] and [[Pink Floyd]]. Most of the budget was spent on a large wooden rabbit in a scene which drew heavily on Greek history and the [[Trojan Horse]].

==Plot synopsis==

The plot centers on the quest for the Holy Grail appointed to [[King Arthur]] Pendragon by [[God]].

==Characters==

Classic Python characters introduced to fans by Holy Grail include The Black Knight, The Knights who say "Ni", Tim the Enchanter, The Insulting Frenchman and The Lord of Swamp Castle.

==Quotes==

*The Black Knight - When Challenging King Arthur, "None Shall Pass"
*King Arthur - After severing the limbs of the Black Knight (who still will not surrender), "All right then, we'll call it a draw."
*The Insulting Frenchman - "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."
*Peasant - On accusing a woman of witchcraft "She turned me into a newt, .......... I got better."

Like most Python films, it can be partly considered a [[musical]], with several [[set piece]]s built around songs written by [[Neil Innes]] and sometimes [[Eric Idle]].

==Spamalot==
Original Python [[Eric Idle]], has adapted the film to a multiple [[Tony Award]] winning [[musical]] called Spamalot. The show opened on [[Broadway]] in 2005.

[[Category:Comedy]]

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-12-02T18:04:02Z

NeilEG: Rantrantrant

{{debate}}
::
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument. When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers. There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial. When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama. It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim. It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.

I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale. The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.

At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact. I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.
::

What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)

::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]

:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a "Liberellapedia" to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of "honesty and fair-play" in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)

: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.

Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy.
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same.
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth. We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else. You won't be fooling anyone here.

: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it. The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship. If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 12:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Markr, you're not fooling anyone here. "AD" is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history. CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: This is a serious question, even though it'll probably come off as sounding sarcastic: why not endorse the Jewish calendar, with the current year of 5769 (possibly modified to use months/days from the Gregorian calendar with the year from the Jewish calendar)? That seems like it'd be the most historically correct from a religious/creationist standpoint. Is it just because 2008 is the more universally recognized year, and using the Jewish calendar would create confusion, or do you think that 2008 AD is more accurate than 5769? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::: So how many people in the world use the Jewish calendar? Listen, if AD and BC offended the Islamic world, use of the Jewish calendar would be viewed as a virtual decleration of war upon Islam; you know how they hate Israel. If you, like a typical Liberal, are ignorant of current affairs in the Middle East, blinkered to facts by your obsession with tolerance and multiculturalism. The use of CE is similar to those who thought that a new language could be taught all around the world, in the name of goodwill and understanding and rainbows and etc. Why should a new language be created and taught when many people already speak English or Spanish or Chinese? Why not teach one of those instead of making up a foolish new one 'to prevent offense'? It's the same with CE; why make a new system when the world already has some it's comfortable with in the name of so-called 'tolernace'. It's just liberals making up problems again. With any luck, CE will fail as terribly as those artificial languages did too. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-12-02T17:53:46Z

NeilEG:

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2008-12-02T15:54:50Z

NeilEG:

Science Fiction

2008-12-02T15:40:56Z

NeilEG: Magic, not magic. Removed some unneccesary prose - seemed to be stating the obvious or what is already stated.

Science Fiction

2008-12-02T15:37:58Z

NeilEG:

Science fiction is a genre of literature, film, theater, and other forms of expression focusing on fantastic or futuristic worlds. The term 'science' is misleading, as often the story takes place in an unadvanced era, similar to that of the Middle Ages, and may involve magic.

The Science fiction genre includes hard science, which is based on accurately portraying the real world, or fiction that uses alternate science which is invented to advance the plot of the story. In this invented science genre the author needs to explain the science at some point so the reader can appreciate its use in the story. Science fiction may also include the Fantasy genre, where majic and fairies may reside.

=Notable Science Fiction Series=
Discworld - Terry Pratchett

The Foundation series - Isaac Asimov

Science Fiction

2008-12-02T15:15:19Z

NeilEG:

Bible Belt

2008-12-01T16:31:16Z

NeilEG: Small explanation

The '''Bible Belt''' is a geographical region including part of the South and midsection of the [[United States]]. It is so called because of the rough shape of the region: it resembles a belt around much of the lower middle of the nation and the majority of the inhabitants are practising Christians (hence the 'Bible' belt). [[Paleoconservative|Social conservatism]] is a dominant paradigm within the Bible Belt.

The [[Bible]] Belt includes all of the southern states as well as the Lower Midwestern States.

==Bible Belt States==
* [[Alabama]]
* [[Arkansas]]
* [[Florida]] (Northern part)
* [[Georgia]]
* [[Illinois]] (Southern part)
* [[Indiana]]
* [[Kansas]]
* [[Kentucky]]
* [[Nebraska]] (Southern part)
* [[Louisiana]]
* [[Mississippi]]
* [[Missouri]]
* [[New Mexico]] (South Western corner)
* [[North Carolina]]
* [[Ohio]] (Southern part)
* [[Oklahoma]]
* [[South Carolina]]
* [[Tennessee]]
* [[Texas]]
* [[Virginia]]
* [[West Virginia]]

[[category:United States]]

Premiership

2008-11-30T18:30:34Z

NeilEG: Creation

The Barclays Premiership is the most prestigious of the English Football Leagues. It contains twenty teams, and after each season the bottom two are relegated and the top two from the next League (the Championship) are pormoted.
It operates on a points-based system where a win counts as 3 points, a draw as 1 point and a loss as 0 points. The team with the most points at the end of the season wins; the most recent winners were Manchester United. In the event of a draw on points, goal difference is used to decide the winner.
The Premiership has attracted criticism due to the fact that the vast majority of the teams stand little chance of winning; the only clubs with a realistic chance of success are Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool, known as the 'Big Four'.

User:NeilEG

2008-11-29T18:07:11Z

NeilEG: New page: Hi, I'm Neil Green from Britain, and if you want to talk to me, leave a message on my talk page.

Hi, I'm Neil Green from Britain, and if you want to talk to me, leave a message on my talk page.

Manganese

2008-11-29T17:58:07Z

NeilEG: reference

{{Element | name=Manganese | symbol=Mn | anumber=25 | amass=54.9 amu | noe=25 | class=Transition metal | cstructure=Cubic | color=Gray | date=1774 | discname=[[Johann Gahn]] | origname=From the Latin word ''mangnes'' (magnet) | uses=Steel, batteries, ceramics, coins | obtained=Pyrolusite, psilomelane, rhodochrosite}}

Manganese is a member of the transition metals in the periodic table. It is remarkable in all the other metals in that it is formed by the radioactive breakdown of magnesium isotopes, yet is still found in sufficient quantities to be useful in common, everyday processes and materials. Manganese is found in ore along with magnesium, and the two are seperated in a process similar to that of the blast furnace, due to their significantly different melting points (one melts and is tapped off while the other remains solid).<ref>Salters-Nuffield 'Chemical Storylines' - 2003</ref>

[[Category:Metals]]

Manganese

2008-11-29T17:57:26Z

NeilEG: Added info on where it is obtained from.

University of Cambridge

2008-11-27T12:21:26Z

NeilEG: Hull isn't a top English university - it's a Blackadder (British comedy) joke

The '''[[University]] of Cambridge''' commonly referred to as '''Cambridge University''' or simply '''Cambridge''' is an institution of higher learning based in [[Cambridge]], [[England]], and the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. Cambridge was established in 1209 [http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/records.html] by scholars fleeing the hostility of the townsmen in [[Oxford]], the historical reason for the competition between the two Universities and the origin of the traditional river "dunking" of Cambridge scholars visiting Oxford.

Cambridge is a confederation of colleges, faculties, and institutions[http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/works/]. The University administration is relatively small compared to the size of the University. Many functions that are normally carried out by the central university bureaucracy in other universities are carried out by the colleges as at Oxford University. The functions of the colleges include teaching and research. Degrees are however conferred by the University. A person with a degree from Cambridge can put ''Cantab.'' after their name and degree, ''Cantab.'' being short for ''Cantabrigian'' (from the Latin name for the city, which is ''Cantabrigia''.)

The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge collectively are often known as "Oxbridge". Historically, these two universities are regarded as the top English universities.

==List of colleges==
The following is a list of Cambridge colleges and halls as of 2008.[http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/]

*Christ's College
*Churchill College
*Clare College
*Clare Hall
*Corpus Christi College
*Darwin College
*Downing College
*Emmanuel College
*Fitzwilliam College
*Girton College
*Gonville and Caius College
*Homerton College
*Hughes Hall
*Jesus College
*Lucy Cavendish College
*King's College
*Magdalene College
*Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall)
*Newnham College
*Pembroke College
*Peterhouse College
*Queens' College
*Robinson College
*St. Catherine's College
*St. Edmund's College
*St. John's College
*Selwyn College
*Sidney Sussex College
*Trinity College
*Trinity Hall
*Wolfson College

==External links==
*[http://www.cam.ac.uk University of Cambridge]

[[Category:British Universities]]